[1928] in tlhIngan-Hol
Conjunctions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Nov 3 11:43:22 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 11:31:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick Nicholas's message of Wed, 3 Nov 1993 10:01:29 +1000 (GMT) <1
99311030001.AA27944@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
>From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 10:01:29 +1000 (GMT)
>To Matthew Whiteacre respond I thus:
>#How do you make a list of three or more nouns? Would it be N-N-N-je?
>#ghorDaq mara qeng Qel je julup
>Hm. I don't see why not. There is an ambiguity problem, but there's a problem
>with a list of just two nouns too: (N N) N je vs. N (N N) je. Still, I'd
>have a lot of time for N N je N je. If nothing else, it's so... Reverse
>Polish! :)
The only language I have to compare to is Sanskrit, which also has its
conjunctions postposed. Unfortunately, it's extremely inconsistent about
it, sometimes putting the conjunction after each element, sometimes only
after the last, etc (and when conjoining sentences the conjunction can come
in between or pretty much anywhere in the second, or both). N N je N je
makes sense from a logical perspective, as RPN, and I'd bet it would be
considered correct, if perhaps wordy. Colloquial usage would probably use
N N N je in cases where context makes ambiguity unlikely.
~mark
